Less Noise and More Signal - Printable Version

Less Noise and More Signal - Printable Version

+- AuntyPru Forum (https://auntypru.com/forum)
+-- Forum: MH 370 -Media unscrambled. (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=53)
+--- Forum: P2 - Wheat from Chaff. (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=54)
+--- Thread: Less Noise and More Signal (/showthread.php?tid=58)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Kharon - 07-20-2016

A500 – “I am still waiting for them to give up fighting over who shot MH17 down, and start to look for some other cause other than a BUK no one saw.”

Funny you mention that; ‘coincidence’ is a strange phenomenon and there is plenty of it, enough to justify the real thing as a ‘reality’ of life. Then there is the ‘funny’ coincidence department; there’s lot of support for the notion that MH17 belongs firmly in that file.

Thing that troubles most is the ‘doubt’ created by the ‘official’ channels. We should feel able to trust and believe the official version; and, mostly we can, even when there are political and diplomatic nuances to the final construct. But the MA events have taken many lives and two aircraft; both stories are shrouded in doubt, riddled with inconsistency and tainted with suspicion. Oscar Wilde said it best:-

“To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Aye well; what’s life without a mystery or two to chew on eh?

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Peetwo - 07-21-2016

Fresh from Bloomberg - Wink

Quote:Have MH370 Hunters Been Looking in the Wrong Place for Two Years?
Angus Whitley
July 21, 2016 — 5:00 AM AEST

A man looks at messages written on a banner for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Sepang, Malaysia, on March 25, 2014.

Photographer: Goh Seng Chong/Bloomberg

Malaysia, Australia and China to assess operation Thursday

One option is to revise assumptions on search: Scientist

As investigators prepare to concede defeat in their search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, some scientists are pondering the unthinkable: they’ve been looking in the wrong place for more than two years.

Ships scouring an almost endless expanse of southern Indian Ocean have whittled down the area to a patch little bigger than the U.S. state of Delaware. They’ve turned up nothing of the jet that disappeared March 8, 2014, en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur with 239 people on board.

With no closure in sight, transport ministers from Malaysia, China and Australia meet Thursday in Kuala Lumpur to assess the A$180 million ($135 million) operation. There are no plans to look beyond the designated 120,000 square kilometers (46,330 square miles), the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said in an e-mail before today’s meeting. More than 90 percent of the search area has already been covered.

The absence of wreckage in the search area to date may question one of the recovery mission’s central assumptions -- that no one was in control of the plane when it ran out of fuel and spiraled sharply into the ocean, said Vaughan Clarkson, a former University of Queensland radar and tracking specialist and one of the scientists who helped recreate MH370’s flight path for the Australian government.

Rather, the fruitless hunt suggests someone glided the aircraft into the water -- beyond what would become the outer limits of the search zone, he said. Leidschendam, Netherlands-based Fugro NV is the contractor carrying out the search operations.

“Probably what we’ve discovered from this exercise is that the plane was under active control,” said Clarkson, who’s now an independent consultant. “The search area must be basically right, but perhaps it’s not quite big enough.”

The implications of a controlled glide into the ocean are vast. Even with no fuel, a pilot could have guided MH370 for a further 230 kilometers, the ATSB said in a December 2015 report. That’s more than enough to reach Philadelphia from New York. It could mean combing an area almost as big as California for the best part of a decade.

For a related story, click: Missing Malaysia Jet Weeks Away From Keeping Secrets Forever

If the assumptions were accurate, there’s little chance the wreck could remain hidden in the search area, Australian government scientists said in a report last year. At depths of up to 6 kilometers (4 miles), the underwater search has been so thorough that not even lumps of coal on the seabed have escaped detection, the ATSB said in an e-mail to Bloomberg News this week.

Recreating Flight 370’s last moments has always been one of the biggest challenges. Earlier satellite data from the plane suggested it cruised south over the Indian Ocean for about six hours. And a final automated electronic message probably coincided with fuel exhaustion, scientists concluded. But after that, scientists had little help other than flight simulations and data from old plane crashes.

Air-traffic controllers lost contact with MH370 less than an hour after takeoff as it approached Vietnam. Malaysia Prime Minister Najib Razak has said the plane was deliberately steered off course.

Step Back

After an effective but fruitless search of this nature, it may be time to step back and reevaluate, Larry Stone, the chief scientist at Reston, Virginia-based consultant Metron Inc. who has tracked missing aircraft and ships for half a century, said in an e-mail.

“You have effectively exhausted the information on which your search was planned,” said Stone, who mapped out the resting place of Air France Flight 447, which was recovered two years after plummeting into the Atlantic Ocean with 228 people aboard in 2009.

One option is to revise the assumptions on which the search is based and question whether neglected information should be included in a new hunt, Stone said in an email.

Families of the passengers are already petitioning for the search to be extended.
Wild winter weather and waves more than five stories high have delayed the mission in the Indian Ocean. An original mid-year completion target has been pushed back by up to eight weeks, investigators said in a July 13 update.

The first debris from MH370 was found on Reunion Island in July 2015. Four other pieces that turned up on Africa’s eastern seaboard and in Mauritius almost certainly belong to the doomed jet, according to investigators.

Officials are also analyzing a possible wing flap found late June on Pemba Island off the coast of Tanzania. Investigators haven’t yet confirmed that the debris belongs to MH370.
Ultimately, the decision by ministers in Kuala Lumpur may boil down to time and money.

“My own feeling is that it would be a shame if we let the search drop,” said tracking specialist Clarkson. “But I appreciate that a hard-headed decision needs to be made at some point.”

MTF...P2

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Peetwo - 07-22-2016

Tripartite Meeting summary - via the ABC:

Quote:MH370: Hunt for missing Malaysian Airlines plane to be suspended if current search unsuccessful
Updated 43 minutes agoFri 22 Jul 2016, 6:48pm

Photo: Officials have met to decide the future of the search for Flight MH370. (AFP)

The search for missing flight MH370 will be suspended if the plane is not found by December, officials from Australia, Malaysia and China have announced.

The transport ministers from the three nations met today to discuss the future of the search in one of the world's greatest aviation mysteries.

In a joint press conference, the ministers told reporters if the plane was not found in the current search area, the search "would not end, but be suspended".

Due to weather delays, the search is expected to be completed in December, officials said.

"In the absence of new credible evidence, Malaysia, Australia and China have collectively agreed to suspend the search upon completion of the 120,000km search," Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said.

Quote:"I must emphasise that this does not mean we are giving up on the search for MH370," he added.
Australian Transport Minister Darren Chester said every effort had been made to find the aircraft, and authorities had engaged world experts and cutting-edge technology in the hunt.

"This decision [to suspend the search] has not been taken lightly nor without some sadness and we want to emphasise our work is continuing," he said.

Mr Chester said he wanted to reassure the victims' families and loved ones that they were "on the same team" and authorities were also desperate to find answers and locate the aircraft.

MH370 disappeared in March 2014 with 239 passengers and crew onboard while on its way to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur.

Almost $180 million has been spent so far on the underwater search.

From other news sites:

The Australian: MH370: search to end in months unless evidence found

BBC: MH370: Search for missing plane to be suspended not shut down

SBS: Ministers meet on MH370 search

Yahoo!7 News: Ministers meet on MH370 search - Yahoo7

Huffington Post (UK): MH370 Mystery Deepens As Experts Admit Search Area Could Be Wrong

MTF...P2

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Gobbledock - 07-22-2016

Perm boy;

"Mr Chester said he wanted to reassure the victims' families and loved ones that they were "on the same team" and authorities were also desperate to find answers and locate the aircraft".

How dare you...on the 'same team'? You lying lowlife piece of grime. 'Same team' my ass you stain. You go home to your family at night. MH370 victims loved ones don't sleep at night due to not having their loved ones beside them. Don't you dare put yourself or your crooked Government bipartite mates in the same boat as the families of the deceased.

Chester, 'your team' didn't screw up the search because there was never a proper search in the first place, you deliberately searched in the wrong areas. Reasons why? Well you and your cronies know why, but of course the rest of us will most likely never be elevated high enough up societies ladder to find out the truth. But one day the ocean will give up all it's secrets old mate, it always does. One day........tick tock

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - ventus45 - 07-23-2016

"Suspension"
The perfect political "get out of jail", ie, "cop-out".
Suspension is the perfect political "device" to put the investigation into official permanent limbo.
It means that the investigation is technically, that is, legally, still on-going, but "progress" has stopped.
This effectively means that no information of substance (even if it exists) will ever be released at all.
There will be no further reports, and certainly no "final" report.

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Brock McEwen - 07-23-2016

Something smells.

If the BFO and fuel analyses are so bad at definitively narrowing impact - yet the BTO values appearing in the late-arriving pdf file from Inmarsat remain sacrosanct - then 120,000 km^2 could have been "spent" searching Arc 7 (MH370's BTO-indicated position 3 or so minutes after fuel exhaustion) to a width of 37 km for a distance of 3,243 km. Such a search would have covered the 7th Arc from 19°s to 40.7°s - and falsified any unpiloted-spiral-to-impact theory that came anywhere CLOSE to fitting the BFO and fuel indications.

Why would 37km (20nmi) have been enough width? The Independent Group (IG) seemed to think it was. And they did not just cite the BFO values in support of this: the flight simulator results reported by Mike Exner a) validated this choice of search box width, and b) gave much the same answer as independent tests by the ATSB. The "steepening-descent-indicating" BFO values at 00:19 were merely icing on the cake - an extra data point which at least nominally corroborated the simulator experience (and vice versa).

But they did NOT search like this (restrict width to that indicated by the theory, and keep adding length to the box). They asked us to trust the BFO and fuel analyses they had performed, which significantly narrowed the search. I for one trusted the work of the IG, which seemed to be almost a citizen's version of the official analyses; since the Fall of 2014, they've been in almost perfect lock-step regarding interpretation of emerging evidence.

But my motto all along has been: "trust, but verify". I set out to monitor emerging evidence, compare it to search strategy, and note gaps. Here's how I went about it:

In early 2015, I calibrated a stochastic model to Mike Exner's reported simulator trials, generated the indicated "distance from arc" distribution, and compared it to the box width already searched. It suggested that further widening of the search box was of no value toward falsifying the "unpiloted steep dive" theory.

Did they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, they did not.

In late 2015, I showed that nine of nine drift studies suggested the search box appeared inconsistent with a flaperon (whose barnacles indicated low buoyancy) turning up in Réunion on 16.7 months later.

Did they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, they did not.

In early 2016, I used IPRC data to show that the search box was inconsistent with lack of debris on Australian shores.

Did they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, they did not.

In mid-2016, I used Adrift data to try to learn what all debris finds - taken TOGETHER - could tell us about drift-indicated impact points. It counter-indicated the search box.

Will they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, it now appears they will not.

Perhaps, I can hear you proposing hopefully, the decision to widen instead of lengthen would have fringe benefits: perhaps by searching out so wide, at least OTHER theories (e.g. piloted glide) could be falsified...?

No, of course they weren't - how silly of you to have hoped for something that useful. Their current search box - even when completed - by their own calculations falls well short of the total distance from the 7th Arc a B777 would be expected to travel under control of a pilot attempting to maintain a controlled glide.

Bottom line: search leaders have spent millions of tax dollars - and more than two years - without managing to falsify a SINGLE theory involving an Indian Ocean impact:

- they clearly haven't searched enough width to falsify a piloted, and thus long, glide
- they clearly haven't searched enough length to falsify an unpiloted, and thus steep, dive

Even if your spider sense isn't tingling over the possibility of a search designed to PRESERVE mystery (or at least DELAY its solution), the sheer resource waste alone should be enough to make your blood boil. This kind of waste is all too common. The tax-paying general public is fed up with this kind of wasteful dysfunction.

And emotionally tortured next of kin deserve better than this. Running the clock (and the tab...) for this long without falsifying a single one of their theories is simply inexcusable.

The root CAUSE of this waste is the apathy of citizens. I believe the general public should boycott air travel until such time as full transparency and accountability is achieved on the MH370 file. We need to hit these people in the pocketbook, if we hope to make an impression.

This is not about conspiracies or cover-ups. Nor is it about a witch hunt directed at any one nation - there appears plenty of blame to go around.

This is about accountability. Period.

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - BugsyM - 07-26-2016

So this wild goose chase search into the SIO wasn't just based on the Inmarsat data....they have been withholding information that was supposedly on Shah's flight Sim. He probably had 100's of paths and landing strips on that thing, but because they don't want this plane found, they will use that one flight path that supposedly goes to the SIO and say he did it. What a crock of shit!!!

The whole cock-up has been a cover up from the start, in order to keep what really happened a secret, which was most likely a true hijacking or an accident to do with illegal cargo (ie: the lithium batteries over the limit).

The people making money off this tragedy should hang their heads in shame, its disgusting and wrong. Lying and falsifying documents to prove your theory is just wrong.

If Malaysia had this info and let the public speculate and create conspiracy theories that only helped confuse the world, its exactly what they want to the world to do.

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - aussie500 - 07-27-2016

Some flight in a game someone had on Zaharie's flight simulator probably 12 months before MH370 vanished is hardly anything to do with where they are looking in the SIO for a real plane. There have been enough people calculating end points on that arc, all they use is the primary radar and the Inmarsat data. Jeff Wise and his flights of fancy have nothing to do with the ATSB. And between the three programs there was probably something like 20,000 possible flights, Zaharie and others used to use it when it worked, so there would have been a fair few flights in the data logs. Which were all deleted on the 3rd February, so the simulated flight obviously never happened a few weeks before MH370 vanished. Jeff is being deliberately fuzzy on a few known details. Trying to make things seem what they are not. One failed flight by someone ages before MH370 vanished, is not a criminal activity and is nothing to do with MH370. Even if it was real, which it probably is not knowing Jeff Wise.

It is not Malaysia making money deliberately misleading the public.

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Kharon - 07-28-2016

Passing strange? Damn straight:-

ABC - “According to a source, the ATSB took the murder–suicide theory so seriously that expert mapping of possible crash locations took it into account.”

Just looking through my own flight planning program data base and the XL spreadsheets I keep, out of habit, of waypoint, track and distance ‘templates’ and there are ‘lots of’; almost 600 individual files. I can, with ease, conjure up a flight plan from anywhere to somewhere in a very short space of time; for a range of aircraft. Now, it seems to me that anyone, even with half a brain, could look at my data base and decide that one of those plans had been used to plan the last flight undertaken. But; if I wanted to ‘disappear’ an aircraft do you not think that within that data base a ‘false’ plan would not have been left behind; a close, but no cigar version.

A 1˚ variance in track details will create a flight path deviation of 1 mile in every 60 travelled; at 300 knots (for easy arithmetic) that :: 5 miles every hour :: 5 hours = 25 miles away from where the faux track would have taken us. So to vanish an aircraft; lay a trail of breadcrumbs from A to B using a ‘track’, say South (180˚); then just remember to add or subtract your own deviation (say 5˚ i.e track 175˚- 185˚) and; just like that, an error of 100 miles can be built in. The point is that even if the pilot had decided to disappear the aircraft; and, even if he had used his very own ‘program’ to plot the dastardly act; do you reckon he’d be dumb enough to leave an accurate, detailed ‘plan’ on his own computer? No sane investigator would swallow that whole; only the sensationalist press, dumb politicians and Beaker would entertain that notion for more than 30 seconds.

ABC - "The simulator information shows only the possibility of planning. It does not reveal what happened on the night of its disappearance nor where the aircraft is located," the statement says.

There now, that’s a much more concise interpretation of a non-fact. That this ‘flight plan’ keeps being raised as even partly credible search evidence is a symptom of the dreadful management of both search and investigation. That folk without any evidence, one way or ‘tuther keeps staing that it was the Captain ‘wot-dunnit’ are talking through their collective arses – hats.

There, small rant over (feel better now) – but I declare, that if I hear another load of half baked twaddle about some ‘flight plan’ being the sinister master plan developed by a man who cannot defend himself; someone will catch an earful. It’s BOLLOCKS, unmitigated, uneducated, mindless bollocks.

DDD Darren should not be allowed out without a minder and a muzzle; the minder lest he get lost going to loo at Tamworth; the muzzle to prevent him changing feet every time his mouth opens. Dunno which is worse; him or the idiot press. Close race to the bottom that one.

Toot – over it – toot.

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Peetwo - 07-31-2016

MH370: The weasel words within??

The following is a copy of the 22 July Tripartite meeting communiqué released on behalf of the Malaysian, Chinese & Australian governments:

Quote:MH370 Tripartite Meeting
Listen to this page
A A A
Joint Communiqué
22 July 2016

Senior Ministers from Australia, Malaysia and the People's Republic of China met today in Putrajaya, Malaysia to discuss arrangements in the event Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is not located.

Malaysian Minister of Transport, Dato' Sri Liow Tiong Lai, chaired the meeting with the Australian Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Darren Chester MP, and the Chinese Minister of Transport, the Hon. Mr. Yang Chuantang.

Ministers took the opportunity to reflect on the enormous sense of grief felt by so many people following the tragic disappearance of MH370 and again acknowledged and expressed their gratitude to the many nations of the world that had provided expertise and other assistance over the subsequent almost two and a half years.

Ministers were provided with an update on the status of the underwater search and the Annex 13 investigation.

Attention was particularly focused on delays to the search as a result of damaged equipment and recent poor weather, as well as discussion about the discovery of aircraft debris and what it meant in relation to search efforts and the investigation.

While acknowledging the significance of the debris, Ministers noted that to date, none of it had provided information that positively identified the precise location of the aircraft.

With less than 10,000 square kilometres of the high priority search area remaining to be searched, Ministers acknowledged that despite the best efforts of all involved, the likelihood of finding the aircraft is fading.

Ministers agreed that should the aircraft not be located in the current search area, and in the absence of credible new evidence leading to the identification of a specific location of the aircraft, the search would not end, but be suspended upon completion of the 120,000 square kilometre search area.

The suspension does not mean the termination of the search. Ministers reiterated that the aspiration to locate MH370 has not been abandoned. Should credible new information emerge which can be used to identify the specific location of the aircraft, consideration will be given in determining next steps

Note: Apparently it was Australia on their own initiative who drafted the above communiqué, which was excepted without too many changes from either Malaysia or China.
Okay back tracking a little bit... Rolleyes

The following is written QON by Senator Sterle from the Additional Estimates, followed by the ATSB answer with the relevant part in bold:

Quote:Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

1. How much has the Australian Government spent so far in the search from MH370? a. In 2014-5?

b. In 2015-6 so far?

　

2. What is the Commonwealth’s overall budgeted amount available for the search?

3. What have other nations contributed to the search?

4. What is the outlook for the search process?

Answer:

A comprehensive briefing on the search for Malaysia Airlines MH370 was provided to the Committee on 22 February 2016 by the Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC), which was established to coordinate whole of Australian Government activities in regard to the search, and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), which is responsible for underwater search operations. This response has been provided by the JACC.

1. In the 2014-15 Federal Budget, the Government committed up to $89.9 million over two years from 2013-14 as part of Australia’s contribution to the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. This provided:

• $2 million for the Joint Agency Coordination Centre;

• $27.9 million to Department of Defence for costs in search for MH370; and

• $60 million to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to undertake the underwater search.

　

a. In 2013-14 and 2014-15:

• Department of Defence expended $27.9 million;

• Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development expended $1.6 million to support the JACC; and

• ATSB expended $41.8 million of Australian Government funding on underwater search activities.

　

Other agencies absorbed their own costs.

b. As at 29 February 2016, an additional $18.2 million has been expended of Australian Government funding by the ATSB.

2. $89.9 million.

3. Twenty-five other countries have been involved in the search for MH370, generously contributing resources and expertise: Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Myanmar, Malaysia, New Zealand, the People’s Republic of China, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. During 2014-15, Malaysia directly funded the provision of a vessel and search system as part of the search.

The contract for the provision of these services was directly with Malaysia and the value of this contribution is not available. In addition, Malaysia has committed a cash contribution of $100 million, of which $80 million has been paid as at 29 February 2016. During the early part of the search, China provided a vessel to undertake underwater mapping services. The value of this contribution is not available. In addition, China has committed to supply a search vessel and funding to cover search costs, to a total value of $20 million

4. It is anticipated that searching the 120,000 square kilometre search area will take until the middle of 2016 to complete. Upon completion of the entire area, it is expected all high probability search areas will have been covered. In the absence of credible new information that leads to the identification of a specific location of the aircraft, the Governments of Australia, Malaysia and China have agreed that there will be no further expansion of the search area.

Okay and then on 05 May 2016 at Beaker's last appearance at Senate Estimates and under questioning from Senator Xenophon Beaker said this:

Quote:Senator XENOPHON: Finally, in respect of MH370, I note that the budget said there would be no further funds; is that right?

Mr Dolan : That is the position. There are no further appropriations. To summarise: the estimated total cost of covering the entire search area was in the order of $180 million, of which $80 million was—

Mr Foley : $100 million from Malaysia.

Mr Dolan : Yes; sorry, I was going with from Australia first, Mr Foley—of which up to $100 million is contributed by Malaysia and the Chinese have given us $20 million in kind and in cash and the rest—$60 million—is from the Australian government.

Senator XENOPHON: Will anyone else be taking up the search or is there basically an acceptance that there will be no attempt to find MH370?

Mr Dolan : The position of the three governments was: if we completed the search of the defined 120,000 square kilometres without success then the search would then be concluded.

Or from about 02:30 here:

And if you refer to the weekly JACC operational updates you can see that message has been consistent all the way through (quoted from 20 July 2016 MH370 Operational update):

Quote:..Consistent with the undertaking given by the Governments of Australia, Malaysia and the People's Republic of China in April last year, 120,000 square kilometres will be thoroughly searched. In the absence of credible new information that leads to the identification of a specific location of the aircraft, Governments have agreed that there will be no further expansion of the search area.

That is until last weeks operational update, where the word suspension now creeps into repetitive text:

Quote:Ministerial Tripartite Meeting, 22 July 2016

Ministers from Malaysia, Australia and the People's Republic of China met in Malaysia last week to discuss a range of matters relating to the search. The key decision from the meeting was that should the aircraft not be located in the current search area, and in the absence of credible new evidence leading to the identification of a specific location of the aircraft, the search would be suspended upon completion of the 120,000 square kilometre search area.

Ministers went to great lengths to explain that this does not mean the termination of the search; should credible new information emerge which can be used to identify the specific location of the aircraft, consideration will be given to determining next steps.

The full communique from the Ministerial Tripartite Meeting is available via the following link: http://jacc.gov.au/media/communiques/2016/com004.aspx.

In the event the aircraft is found and accessible, the existing agreement between Australia, Malaysia and the People's Republic of China for recovery activities, including securing all the evidence necessary for the accident investigation, remains in place.

So my first question is why change the message and add the word 'suspension' to the rhetoric after considerable time and effort has been made to disseminate the original rhetoric? Next question is what is the definition or threshold of 'credible new evidence' that would put significant weight on resuming search operations?
Are these more weasel words to placate the NOK & MH370 followers until such time as interest & concern wanes; or is this an indicator of something else to come? Time will tell I guess... Rolleyes

MTF...P2

Ps Three hours till 60 Minutes Cool

"Next week we meet a man who has only 5 minutes to live" Big Grin

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Gobbledock - 07-31-2016

He said she said

The 60 Minutes piece was interesting to watch, but mostly covered old ground. But I had two observations from the story;

1. Foley never looked at ease, not for one second. His body language mirrored that of a man who had just had a broomstick shoved up his ass sideways. And;

2. The lines were very very blurred as to who is running this effing investigation. The Aussies, Malays, or the god damn French?? One piece of wreckage goes to Australia directly, another piece goes to Malaysia and then to Australia. Another piece goes directly to the Frogs and after a year the Malayaians still don't have that piece in their possession and the Aussies can't answer why that is the case!

Seriously, who is sitting in the left hand seat?? What an embarrassment. The whole investigation is in a state of flux, and the way it is being managed is a pathetic joke. And by default ICAO are a pissweak joke. Sitting idly by while nobody is sitting in the left hand seat.

The 60 Minutes reporter, although on the money for most of the grilling, is in my opinion not a formidable foe, in other words 'not a Richard Carlton' and Foley should have handled him without raising so much as a sweat. But Foley looked rattled, or was it pissed off, or was it both? Either way he didn't look or sound comfortable at all, in fact I thought he almost looked relieved when subtly casting doubt over the entire sordid mess. Or am I over-reading things? My impression was that there most definitely is a bigger game being played here by those in high places and the responses from Foley may indicate that those at the ATsB at his level and below might be getting somewhat sick and tired of the entire shambolic game and having to be the proverbial 'meat in the sandwich'?

TICK '60 Minutes' TOCK

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Kharon - 08-01-2016

Well, I put the much abused TV at risk again and sat through the 60 minutes ‘show’. There was nowhere near 60 minutes of ‘useful’ commentary, but I managed, just, to resist the ‘Off’ button during the dramatized bits. That said, the interview with a ‘real’ accident investigator was worth the effort.

The notion that there was ‘someone’ at the controls is irresistible. Whether it was the pilot or not is not proven and care was taken to avoid claiming that it was. IMO there is more ‘evidence’ against this being the case than there is for it; and, despite blaming the pilot being an easy ‘cop out’ that notion was not made into a major point, just part of the jigsaw. Which is good, responsible reporting. Sure it’s a possibility, but so is the possibility that another hand was on the controls that night.

The notion of a controlled ditching was nicely managed; again, IMO this is a more likely scenario than the falling leaf, ‘ghost ship’ charade. The ‘investigator’ believed and even Foley acknowledged the increased probability. It just makes better sense of what evidence we have.

Felt a bit sorry for Foley, whatever he was sitting on was not comfortable; looked like he was perched on a stool. When under pressure at Estimates he manages very well, stays cool and comes out as mostly credible, but GD has spotted the differences. He was probably a little of both GD, rattled and pissed off, but it could be that he has to juggle so many balls and keep so many secrets that to drop even one ball would be a disaster. It could also be that he was worried about what he does not know; or, has not been told and that concerns him. Then again, it may be that it was not the public he concerned about, but the men behind the scenes. Doubt he’d give a rats for the opinions of the great unwashed horde; but of the faceless ones, those behind the screen, that is a whole other road to a career of pain.

Aye well, duty done. I doubt any of it will change the world, cure poverty, famine, disease or prevent war. I expect 99% of those who watched would have forgotten all about it by bed time, even so, it was good of 60 minutes to put the program on air and try to solve the riddle. I know ratings and advertising dollars had nothing to do with their motivation, nothing at all.

Alt_file_save_forget.

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - ventus45 - 08-01-2016

The proof that The JACC and ATSB do read this forum, is the timing of the change from "conclude" to "suspend".
It was deliberate, for legal reasons, because of what I said here.
http://auntypru.com/forum/-Australia-ATSB-and-MH-370?pid=4339#pid4339

For them, it is the perfect solution to the "problem of the final", as I stated here.
http://auntypru.com/forum/-Australia-ATSB-and-MH-370?pid=4757#pid4757

The ICAO must be loving it.

MH-370 is becoming the "test case" on the use the "suspend" tactic, to "seal" all future investigations, and prevent the issuance of any further "finals".

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Peetwo - 08-07-2016

MH370 & the "he said, she said", spin & deception wars - Undecided

It would seem that the MH370 distraction propaganda campaign is working a treat. On social media there now appears to be a clear division between the 'pilot did it' - i.e. glided the aircraft - & the 'pilot didn't do it' - i.e. ghost flight with uncontrolled terminal dive at the end of flight.

Perhaps to highlight this 'perfect storm' distraction here is part of a post of mine off the AA&MH370 thread:

(08-04-2016, 08:09 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
(08-01-2016, 09:58 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
(08-01-2016, 08:04 AM)Peetwo Wrote: ..But as recently as Friday ATSB commissioner Greg Hood reiterated the view of the search team that satellite data from the Boeing 777 jet suggested it was plunging at almost 400km/h just before it crashed into the sea with 239 passengers and crew...

And quote from Greg Hood West Oz/Airline Rating/Yahoo7 article last Friday:

..Australia’s crash investigator has revealed that data indicates MH370 could have been plunging at almost 400km/h just before it smashed into the sea with 239 passengers and crew.

In his first interview as chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Greg Hood told The West Australian the automated satellite link with the Boeing 777 showed its descent increased dramatically from about 1200m a minute to up to 6700m a minute...

In last night 60 Minutes program Peter Foley rehashed some of the same information about the aircraft rate of descent at the presumed end of flight after the final 00:19 aircraft to satellite (BFO) ping. Refer to Part I YouTube video at about 08:50 minutes.

After reviewing all the available DSTG/ATSB information off the ATSB MH370 reports page - see HERE - nowhere is it stated that ROD and/or airspeed (stated as 400km/h) was calculated off the aircraft transmitted satellite data. Which means this is either new information or information that the ATSB, SSWG and the Annex 13 JIT investigators have previously not made public.

Update to above post : Geoffrey Thomas & Steve Creedy have apparently joined forces again to do a follow up to the MH370 Hoody article, this time they interview Blaine Gibson to give his perspective on the 60 Minutes program and the resulting MSM & Social media coverage since:

Quote:MH370 sleuth says media reports are wrong on debris
Geoffrey Thomas & Steve Creedy 02 Aug 2016

US lawyer who has found most of the debris from MH370 says the 60 Minutes program's expert is not correctMr Blaine with the pieces of debris he found in Madagascar In March this year Jean Dominique and Suzy Vitry found this piece from the cabin interior on the beach of La Reunion. Confirmed as highly likely to be from MH370 by the ATSB

http://www.airlineratings.com/news/749/mh370-sleuth-says-media-reports-are-wrong-on-debris#sthash.752tDZbL.dpuf

However what perked my interest was the following quoted text, which once again confirms the recent ATSB (Hood & Foley) analysis of satellite data pointing towards calculated ROD & TAS/Mach No. ("400km/h") at the assumed end of flight (00:19 BFO) :

Quote:The ATSB is sticking with the current search area based on satellite data and say the uncontrolled ditching is still the hypothesis that bests fits the few available facts .

These include an analysis of frequency differences that indicated the aircraft was descending between 1800m per minute and 3000m per minute during its final log-on request to a geostationary satellite over the Indian Ocean and at up to 6700m per minute eight seconds later when it receives an acknowledgment from ground station in Perth.

Another piece of key evidence is sitting in the ATSB laboratories in Canberra. Failure analysts are looking a large piece of the aircraft’s right main wing flap to see if it was extended on impact.

If this proves not to be the case, it will serious blow to the controlled landing theory.

So in case I missed something I revisited the DSTG analysis report - Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370.

Reference extracts:

Quote:10.5 End of Flight

The output of the particle filter is an estimate of the pdf of the aircraft state at 00:19.

The aircraft was still in the air at this time and a model is required to describe the

distribution of how it may have descended. This has been primarily the responsibility

of the ATSB and the other members of the search team. A discussion of the different

methods used to model the potential motion is presented in [5]. The model for aircraft

motion after 00:19 leads to a prioritisation of the search along and around the final

BTO arc...

...The analysis in [5] leads to a probable scenario where the aircraft ran out of fuel at

some time between 00:11 and 00:19. The final satellite communications message

could be due to the modem rebooting under auxiliary power. Under this hypothesis,

the aircraft was already unpowered at 00:19. The spread of the kernel function is
then determined by the distance over which the aircraft could have moved, which

depends on whether or not the aircraft was under human control during this period.

Flight simulator studies of uncontrolled descents have shown a high likelihood

of the aircraft reaching zero altitude within 15 nm of the beginning of descent [5].

However, the beginning of descent is not known. It is possible for the aircraft to have

travelled farther, especially if a human was controlling the aircraft. As an indicative

kernel, and following advice from the ATSB, a uniform disc of radius 15 nm with

a Gaussian drop off with standard deviation 30 nm beyond this was chosen; this

represents the accident investigators’ assessment of the likely scenarios...

& from Para 10.9:

...The factors that do make a significant difference to the output pdf are the assumed

spread of Mach number and the end of flight model. The assumed Mach number

range covers the speeds feasible over long time durations. The lower end of this

speed range results in the Northern part of the pdf and the higher end of the speed

range results in the Southern part. Restricting the speed to only Mach numbers above

0.8, for example, would contract the pdf to the South. The consequence is that using

a smaller speed range within the bounds already modelled leads to a subset of the

search zone. If a different end of flight model is assumed the general consequence

is to spread the search zone over a larger area. Simulations have predicted that

the maximum distance that the aircraft could have glided under human control is

approximately 100 nm after 00:19 [5]. The search zone that this scenario would

imply is very much larger...
As can be seen there is no reference, from DSTG at least, to any of the BFO data (after 00:19) being calculated as stated in the airlineratings.com article; or indeed the 60 Minutes Peter Foley quote (Part I 08:50).

Within the DSTG book there is several references to the 00:19 BFO data being "unreliable". However apparently the ATSB, unlike the DSTG, are not concerned about this potentially "unreliable" data when analysing...

"...frequency differences that indicated the aircraft was descending between 1800m per minute and 3000m per minute ...and at up to 6700m per minute eight seconds later..."

This raises a number of questions on the veracity of the statements made by CC Hood & Peter Foley.

Q/ After all this time what leads the ATSB to now believe the integrity of the 00:19 BFO as being secure enough to trust to calculate end of flight rates of descent between 1800 to 6700 metres per minute?

Q/ Where did the airspeed reference (i.e. 400 km/hour) come from?

Q/ Finally how come we are only finding out about this 'analysis' now?

So Hoody et.al in the words of former HoR MP and now Senator elect Pauline Hanson..."Please explain??"

Putting my questions aside (above) the following is a Christine Negroni article that refutes - i.e. the 'pilot didn't do it' camp - the aspersions & hearsay evidence that the 60 Minutes program say proves the 'pilot did it' :

Quote:Australia MH370 Pilot Suicide Theory Flies in the Face of Facts
July 31, 2016 / 7 Comments
9M-MRO on approach to LAX photo courtesy Jay Davis

Australia’s news program 60 Minutes told viewers on Sunday that the only possible explanation for the disappearance of Malaysia 370 is “that a skilled pilot deliberately landed the 777 on the water.”

Headline-making to be sure, but it’s unlikely to have gone down the way the program suggests.

The twenty minute report by correspondent Ross Coulthart, rejuvenates the pilot suicide theory with the help of Larry Vance, who was a senior investigator for the Canadian Transport Safety Board during the crash of Swissair 111 in 1998.

The key to the MH370 mystery, according to Vance is in the flaperon, a flight control surface located at the back of the wing. Found on a beach in Reunion Island in 2015, it was the first piece of wreckage to wash up.

The flaperon on Reunion Island

In the pictures, the flaperon has a mangled edge which Vance finds significant. Only if the flaperon had been extended by the pilot by the time the plane hit the water would the edge be in that condition.

“The force of the water is the only thing that could make the jagged edge that we see,” Vance told the reporter.

“When the flaperon was found then everyone in my opinion should have concluded it was a human-engineered event,” Vance said, meaning that the pilot used it in an attempt to purposely land on the surface of the South Indian Ocean. “There’s no other explanation.”
Where this theory goes terribly wrong is in the inmarsat data.

All we know about where this plane flew after it veered from its path northeast to Beijing on the night of March 8, 2014, comes from the signals between the aircraft and the satellite. Analysis of those signals led searchers southwest, to the expansive ocean that has so far yielded very little.

An engineer at inmarsat’s office in London

But the inmarsat data also shows that more than seven hours after departing Kuala Lumpur International Airport, the airplane sent a very different kind of signal. This one, a handshake message, that indicated the airplane was powering back up from an interruption of some kind.

The interruption was probably caused by the two-engine, wide-body airliner finally running out of fuel and the power-up was the result of the deployment of a ram air turbine.

The turbine, called a RAT is like a big box fan without the box. The blade drops from beneath the airplane into the wind and the turning provides basic power to supply the most critical flight controls.

“The RAT powers tail and wing flight controls but not the flaps,” said Mike Bowers, a retired Boeing 777 captain. “There’s a one-way check valve to prevent RAT hydraulic fluid from getting to the flaps. So the RAT cannot power the flaps.”

Simply put, once the plane ran out of fuel, the pilots were unable to move the flaps or the flaperon if the RAT was the only power source. How the flaperon got its ragged edge, who knows, but we can be pretty sure, it wasn’t because the pilots were using it to perfect their water landing techniques.

In wholeheartedly embracing the guided-landing theory, Coulthart, the 60 Minutes reporter, overlooked a truly curious piece of news from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that makes the ditching scenario even less likely.

“We’ve got a bit of hard data that says the aircraft was in a rapid rate of descent,” Peter Foley, a sea and marine engineer responsible for overseeing the ATSB’s search said.

Forgetting the issue of the RAT not powering the flap controls, this would put another damper on the pilot-controlled ditching theory because the flaperon can’t be deployed above 20 thousand feet or at speeds higher than 265 knots.

Foley told 60 Minutes, “We’ve got a rate of descent that’s between 12 to 20 thousand feet a minute.”

For those of you who need a little assistance with descent rate numbers, it’s like “going straight down,” another retired 777 pilot explained.

“Bottom line I don’t think you can recover from a 12 to 20 thousand foot rate of decent,” Bowers, a former military fighter pilot told me, if the suicide theory required the pilots to pull out of that kind of a dive, and then make a controlled ditching on the sea, it’s probably not possible he said. “I don’t think you can get an airplane stabilized without exceeding the structural integrity of the airplane.”

How the Australians have new data on the speed of the descent, is a mystery to me. There’s no radar, nor do I believe is this information available from the satellite.
It is possible that the rate of descent was extrapolated by an entity involved in the investigation. Boeing perhaps? Or maybe the French BEA, which has posession of the part. The engineers would only need to work backwards. How fast would the airplane have to be plummeting to cause the kind of damage seen on the flaperon? That’s my guess. Anyway, I’ve asked the ATSB for clarification.

Wreckage in the lab in Toulouse, France

But assuming the ATSB’s Foley wasn’t feeding nonsense to Australia’s “leading current affairs program”, the Boeing 777 pilots I talk to say an entirely different scenario can explain the speed and maybe even the damage on the flaperon.

After flying at cruise altitude seven and a half hours through the night, Malaysia 370 ran out of fuel. When the engines lost power, the RAT deployed. The plane may have wallowed a bit, one pilot told me, but but let’s get real, it could not fly forever. And this could explain the high speed descent.

With no discredit to the retired Canadian investigator Larry Vance, who I do not know but whom the reporter calls “one of the world’s best,” his guided-pilot theory is complex, unrealistic, in some aspects impossible.

What’s staring everyone in the face is a much more straightforward scenario involving no convoluted plots, or inexplicable mind games coming out of left field from a formerly well-regarded captain.

I don’t know for sure what happened to MH370, though you can read my theory in my soon-to-be-published book, The Crash Detectives. But it is equally perplexing how some scenarios ignore inconsistencies and disregard basic aviation principals to take viewers on a flight to the absurd.

Hmm...RAT deploy? What about the auto-light off of the APU, which from my understanding would occur first? Anyway blind Freddy can see the problem here. When so called experts from either camp (PDI v PDNDI) start asserting 'facts' to an evidentiary trail that is made up of little more than hearsay evidence and supposition, with very little in the way of actual bona fide facts, well let's just say you end up with a perfect smokescreen of distraction... Huh

OK now back to my questions... Rolleyes

+ Q/ I may have missed this, but why wasn't Rolls Royce part of the SSWG?

MTF...P2 Tongue

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Kharon - 08-07-2016

Outed! – by my mates; bugger it.

Contradiction, confusion, conspiracy and cock-up; words used in the endless cycle of theory, counter theory, new theory, old theory and reworked theory – all related to 370. This, from all spectrums; from the dedicated hard working ‘speciality groups, through independents to the fly-by-night chancers who make up stories by the mile and cut ‘em off as needed. What’s a simple country boy supposed to make of it all? That’s what I’d like to know; yes, I would. Why RR was 'not invited' is another - but I digress.

So, I asked a team of wise owls (who, by the way, we beat at darts) what they made of the general hodge-podge of white noise. “Well” says one worthy “it could be that something, somehow has gone awry; something worse than a maniac with a fully loaded aircraft, hell bent of making a statement”. “Ok” says I; “so, what could be worse?”. “What else needs this level of ‘jiggery-pokery’, smoke and mirrors then?

“Think grasshopper” intones the worthy as his comrades nod wisely and look at me. Just like the old days, thinks I, ask a question and the rotten old buggers happily sit back, supping ale, watching my poor old wooden head being tormented; delighting in destroying the half baked answers I can construct with plain, old fashioned logic. Not tonight; I vow it, no tortured brain cells for me; no sir-ee.

“Well”, I starts; “I reckon ET got it: pinched it; and buggered off to Mars”. That’ll hold ‘em I think. Nope; wrong again (curse it).

“Bollocks K” says owl two, (passive like) – “we know that you have a substituted the meaning of ET, you really mean Electronic Terrorism; we can discuss that here, among friends, if it pleases you”.

Thinks - How in the seven hells? – but denial was off the table; they knew. “Construe boy” says P7; “spit it out”. I can, when the gods favour me, beat the old man at darts, which I had – so it was a challenge not to be taken lightly; a fumble in the ruck now meant the beers my darts had won would be forfeit. I took a moment, knocked off a quarter pint and began.

“Well – there are only three arguments to which I cannot find a counter argument”. “Take for example the notion that the PIC was ‘the pilot’; it could have been any pilot” Then consider the argument that only a ‘skilled’ pilot could had ditched the aircraft in one piece – then consider ‘auto-land’”. “For every argument there is an equally compelling counter point”. "I have, I freely admit, given up the idle pastime of chasing the wild goose and fishing for red herrings”. “So, I begin at the front end – means, motive, opportunity, ‘skills’ and ‘specialised’ knowledge”. “Last to first – specialised knowledge; of computer systems”. “There are, in this world, some people with a frankly terrifying ‘knowledge’ of how computers work; how programs are written, how to access those programs, how to manipulate those programs; and, how to ‘interfere’ with every single one of ‘em”. “There are folk who know exactly how to gain entry into the most sophisticated of protection ‘systems’, they can do this without the knowledge of not only the average Joe; but, of the Joes who protect these systems”. "This is documented, provable, quantifiable and meets all the requirements of ‘truth’ being proven”. (N.B. I cunningly avoided mentioning the other two and seem to have gotten away with it – Shush).

“In short, gentlemen; there are more competent, qualified ‘hackers’ than there are pilots; lots more”. “Consider this, a flash drive, stuffed into an electronics bay port, by one determined individual, could have created all or any manner of electronic mayhem, throughout the entire aircraft’s systems”. “It is not beyond the bounds of logic that the aircraft was hi-jacked by it’s very own system”. “If: and it is a big, speculative IF this occurred, then only this would require and explain the level of ‘cover-up’ and ‘confused messages’ those outside of the inside circle are receiving; I rest my case”.

Well, no one fell about laughing and P7 got the next round in; which was a good thing, - all that talking made me bone dry. There was a quiet interlude during which ale was thoughtfully sipped : “Come” says the old man – “double or square the next rubber”.

Oh, I dare say, in due course, the wise owls will take my dissertation apart and carefully continue my inadequate education; they always do. But so long as I can win (again) at darts and manage a six pint order – I can and will continue to learn from older, wiser heads. One thing certain; I kept ‘em off my case tonight – tomorrow; well, we shall see.

That’s it. ET explained to the wise owls. But ‘tis my own pet theory; no facts to support it; no evidence to back it up; just my two bob, spent as best pleased me.

Toot toot.

PS; will someone, please, teach the thing in my back paddock how to use the bloody telephone- I can’t speak the lingo.

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Gobbledock - 08-07-2016

'K', interesting line of discussion, interesting indeed. Unfortunately I was unable to make it to the darts game. The kids up the road invited me to a night of throwing rocks on McComicks roof, pissing over his doorstep and poisoning his hedges. Sorry 'K', I just couldn't resist the offer!

So, let's say someone with an agenda inserted a flash drive in the avionics bay, relatively easy enough to do, and caused the ensuing accident, it leaves one question - why haven't they done it again? If it was terrorism related to ISIS they would have done what terrorists often do and 'test the waters'. If you can bring down one plane, especially if no evidence can be found, then you can bring down more! So could it have been a 'test run', a precursor to a bigger event where they bring down 10, 20 or 100 almost simultaneously?

Or if it was terrorist related were they targeting just one particular person, by going to all that work to bring down that specific flight? ISIS havent officially claimed responsibility, and there are clandestine operators that could pull off such a stunt. Mossad have the skill to do something as technical as this and so do the Russians. I'm not convinced the CIA would.

The possibilities are endless and probably won't end until some tangible evidence is unveiled. The unfortunate thing is that for me, it is the actions of numerous governments that raise the 'suspicion' stakes. We all know that governments are completely inept and couldn't tie their shoelaces successfully, but they are damn good at lying, deceiving, colluding and covering. And the actions of the Australians, Malaysians, Yanks, French and even the Chinese leaves a very putrid smell hanging in the air.

It definitely wasn't E.T because parts have been found. And the Bermuda Triangle is a long way away. And as for the 'aircraft glided onto the water' theory, I'm not so sure it was that simple. Maybe if it had been the Hudson River on a calm, tranquil and smooth day in daylight hours then yes that is plausible, and she may have floated for a while. But we are talking about MH370 at night, landing on some of the roughest and nastiest ocean in the world, and that's in relatively good weather. An area prone to sudden weather changes and seas as high as 15 story buildings. The odds that MH370 landed on water as smooth as ice and remained in one piece and even floated is totally unlikely. And at night, no moonlight, and with systems not working? C'mon.

I still wouldn't discount the aircraft being 'terminated' due to some sort of 'valuable cargo' onboard, whether that was physical cargo or whether it was 'human cargo' as in some valuable intellect travelling? Both can't be discounted. Some people can be worth quite a lot of money to the right organisation if they become dead!

One thing is certain - there are a lot of inaccuracies, unanswered questions, unusual reactions, and a worrying lot of effort put into subverting aircraft systems to try to cover the aircrafts track and heading. Pretty high level for a pilot who just wanted to top himself, don't you think?

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Peetwo - 08-08-2016

(08-07-2016, 07:30 PM)kharon Wrote: Outed! – by my mates; bugger it.

Contradiction, confusion, conspiracy and cock-up; words used in the endless cycle of theory, counter theory, new theory, old theory and reworked theory – all related to 370. This, from all spectrums; from the dedicated hard working ‘speciality groups, through independents to the fly-by-night chancers who make up stories by the mile and cut ‘em off as needed. What’s a simple country boy supposed to make of it all? That’s what I’d like to know; yes, I would. Why RR was 'not invited' is another - but I digress.

So, I asked a team of wise owls (who, by the way, we beat at darts) what they made of the general hodge-podge of white noise. “Well” says one worthy “it could be that something, somehow has gone awry; something worse than a maniac with a fully loaded aircraft, hell bent of making a statement”. “Ok” says I; “so, what could be worse?”. “What else needs this level of ‘jiggery-pokery’, smoke and mirrors then?

“Think grasshopper” intones the worthy as his comrades nod wisely and look at me. Just like the old days, thinks I, ask a question and the rotten old buggers happily sit back, supping ale, watching my poor old wooden head being tormented; delighting in destroying the half baked answers I can construct with plain, old fashioned logic. Not tonight; I vow it, no tortured brain cells for me; no sir-ee.

“Well”, I starts; “I reckon ET got it: pinched it; and buggered off to Mars”. That’ll hold ‘em I think. Nope; wrong again (curse it).

“Bollocks K” says owl two, (passive like) – “we know that you have a substituted the meaning of ET, you really mean Electronic Terrorism; we can discuss that here, among friends, if it pleases you”.

Thinks - How in the seven hells? – but denial was off the table; they knew. “Construe boy” says P7; “spit it out”. I can, when the gods favour me, beat the old man at darts, which I had – so it was a challenge not to be taken lightly; a fumble in the ruck now meant the beers my darts had won would be forfeit. I took a moment, knocked off a quarter pint and began.

“Well – there are only three arguments to which I cannot find a counter argument”. “Take for example the notion that the PIC was ‘the pilot’; it could have been any pilot” Then consider the argument that only a ‘skilled’ pilot could had ditched the aircraft in one piece – then consider ‘auto-land’”. “For every argument there is an equally compelling counter point”. "I have, I freely admit, given up the idle pastime of chasing the wild goose and fishing for red herrings”. “So, I begin at the front end – means, motive, opportunity, ‘skills’ and ‘specialised’ knowledge”. “Last to first – specialised knowledge; of computer systems”. “There are, in this world, some people with a frankly terrifying ‘knowledge’ of how computers work; how programs are written, how to access those programs, how to manipulate those programs; and, how to ‘interfere’ with every single one of ‘em”. “There are folk who know exactly how to gain entry into the most sophisticated of protection ‘systems’, they can do this without the knowledge of not only the average Joe; but, of the Joes who protect these systems”. "This is documented, provable, quantifiable and meets all the requirements of ‘truth’ being proven”. (N.B. I cunningly avoided mentioning the other two and seem to have gotten away with it – Shush).

“In short, gentlemen; there are more competent, qualified ‘hackers’ than there are pilots; lots more”. “Consider this, a flash drive, stuffed into an electronics bay port, by one determined individual, could have created all or any manner of electronic mayhem, throughout the entire aircraft’s systems”. “It is not beyond the bounds of logic that the aircraft was hi-jacked by it’s very own system”. “If: and it is a big, speculative IF this occurred, then only this would require and explain the level of ‘cover-up’ and ‘confused messages’ those outside of the inside circle are receiving; I rest my case”.

Well, no one fell about laughing and P7 got the next round in; which was a good thing, - all that talking made me bone dry. There was a quiet interlude during which ale was thoughtfully sipped : “Come” says the old man – “double or square the next rubber”.

Oh, I dare say, in due course, the wise owls will take my dissertation apart and carefully continue my inadequate education; they always do. But so long as I can win (again) at darts and manage a six pint order – I can and will continue to learn from older, wiser heads. One thing certain; I kept ‘em off my case tonight – tomorrow; well, we shall see.

That’s it. ET explained to the wise owls. But ‘tis my own pet theory; no facts to support it; no evidence to back it up; just my two bob, spent as best pleased me.

Toot toot.

PS; will someone, please, teach the thing in my back paddock how to use the bloody telephone- I can’t speak the lingo.

(08-07-2016, 09:49 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: 'K', interesting line of discussion, interesting indeed. Unfortunately I was unable to make it to the darts game. The kids up the road invited me to a night of throwing rocks on McComicks roof, pissing over his doorstep and poisoning his hedges. Sorry 'K', I just couldn't resist the offer!

So, let's say someone with an agenda inserted a flash drive in the avionics bay, relatively easy enough to do, and caused the ensuing accident, it leaves one question - why haven't they done it again? If it was terrorism related to ISIS they would have done what terrorists often do and 'test the waters'. If you can bring down one plane, especially if no evidence can be found, then you can bring down more! So could it have been a 'test run', a precursor to a bigger event where they bring down 10, 20 or 100 almost simultaneously?

Or if it was terrorist related were they targeting just one particular person, by going to all that work to bring down that specific flight? ISIS havent officially claimed responsibility, and there are clandestine operators that could pull off such a stunt. Mossad have the skill to do something as technical as this and so do the Russians. I'm not convinced the CIA would.

The possibilities are endless and probably won't end until some tangible evidence is unveiled. The unfortunate thing is that for me, it is the actions of numerous governments that raise the 'suspicion' stakes. We all know that governments are completely inept and couldn't tie their shoelaces successfully, but they are damn good at lying, deceiving, colluding and covering. And the actions of the Australians, Malaysians, Yanks, French and even the Chinese leaves a very putrid smell hanging in the air.

It definitely wasn't E.T because parts have been found. And the Bermuda Triangle is a long way away. And as for the 'aircraft glided onto the water' theory, I'm not so sure it was that simple. Maybe if it had been the Hudson River on a calm, tranquil and smooth day in daylight hours then yes that is plausible, and she may have floated for a while. But we are talking about MH370 at night, landing on some of the roughest and nastiest ocean in the world, and that's in relatively good weather. An area prone to sudden weather changes and seas as high as 15 story buildings. The odds that MH370 landed on water as smooth as ice and remained in one piece and even floated is totally unlikely. And at night, no moonlight, and with systems not working? C'mon.

I still wouldn't discount the aircraft being 'terminated' due to some sort of 'valuable cargo' onboard, whether that was physical cargo or whether it was 'human cargo' as in some valuable intellect travelling? Both can't be discounted. Some people can be worth quite a lot of money to the right organisation if they become dead!

One thing is certain - there are a lot of inaccuracies, unanswered questions, unusual reactions, and a worrying lot of effort put into subverting aircraft systems to try to cover the aircrafts track and heading. Pretty high level for a pilot who just wanted to top himself, don't you think?

Line of discussion continued on PT... Wink

Quote:
Dan Dair
August 8, 2016 at 8:41 am

Hello again Sam,

I have two questions to ask;

It’s a subtle theory, which would circumvent a lot of the issues we’re arguing over on these pages, but...

Where exactly would the perpetrator of such a crime have plugged his memory-stick in.?
They would have to actually be in the cockpit or the electronics bay to gain access to the flight systems. I’d imagine someone would have noticed had either of those scenarios taken place.?

I do though accept that it is as plausible as the initial theories that a hijacker may have accessed the cockpit via the electronics bay.?

&
is “the thing in my back paddock” a euphemism.? (lol)

Sam Jackson
August 8, 2016 at 6:46 pm

Hullo Dan; fair questions. Hesitates, takes a deep breath and; -I guess the point I was struggling to make is a simple one. The general state of armed conflict between the warring 370 theory camps serves no purpose, except IMO, that of the deliberately obfuscated narrative line being spoon fed to the world. Even Ben (bless) falls into the trap, vigorously defending a position which cannot pass a simple test: that of ‘prove it’. So, again IMO, this frenzied tub thumping is being stage managed. That seems a reasonable proposition to me; but by whom and why, evade me. I have a little litmus test I use when the mood strikes and opportunity arises, I’ll mention, in passing, to someone in the supermarket or coffee shop “what do think about – xyz. Last time I did it, I was fascinated by the amount of folk who could not remember the first details about the German Wings tragedy. Some knew there had been a ‘suicide’ action; but could not remember the where, who or ‘what-fors’. They had a valid reason, horrible as it may be; to cling to and they moved on. Try it at a dinner party or BBQ when the subject of aviation arises. This is usually in the form of someone declaring they’ll never fly with ABC again because of Blah, blah, blah etc. Point, – well if and its still a very big IF, the pilot ‘dunnit’ then the matter would have been (IMO) dead, buried and forgotten ages back. It was an easy, if expensive way to end the speculation; same-same the GW story.
Favouring cock-up over conspiracy is a default setting; but reluctantly and with a great deal of ‘testing’ I am, ever so slowly, coming to the point where ‘conspiracy cover up’ has more runs on the board than my old stand-by. So why the smoke and mirrors? Must be a reason; same as the constant pot stirring of the theorists ; why keep the speculation ‘live’ and fluid? I am at a point where I could easily believe they shot the bloody thing down – 200 odd lives weighed against 2 or 3 thousand if there was a threat to repeat 9/11; that too would need a cover up of this magnitude. Same with the ET attack. Suppose it was an ET attack; imagine the absolute terror that would inflict on the world; that possibility would demand a major cover up effort and time would need to be ‘bought’ to build defences. Even if it all went horribly wrong and remote control of the aircraft failed – even so – the panic at high level would be massive; and, rightfully so. Which brings me right back to a cock-up needing a cover up; enough.

Sorry – just me on a hobby horse. Not to give away any ‘air-side’ secrets; suffice to say that where there is a will, there is a way. No security system is faultless and computers are terminally dumb, which is why they are so pedantic; they cannot think. Watch your own set next time Microsoft install a massive ‘update’, remotely, automatically and without a whisper of complaint from your unit. A couple of thousand ‘changes’ made, no problem. Ever pick up a computer virus – would your system know it was being invaded if not for the protections you run – No, it would not. It would simply perform as instructed by whatever ‘program’ held the keys to the kingdom. Can you imagine a modification which said at F350 open the cabin dump valve; take up a heading of XXX until position ABC; then proceed to DEF. No, well I can – see it every other day – I tell the computer ‘go to’ here, at this speed and be at this height by GHI, then fly this approach and land yourself. Guess what, the ‘box’ does it faultlessly and without question every time. Don’t steal an aircraft; just the box which drives it. End of.

The ‘thing’ in the paddock is a tale for another day; best saddle up and sod off now, lest Ben decides I’ve wasted his limited bandwidth with idle dribble and restricts me to 150 characters; or, sends me back to Aunty. Tweet –tweet.

Dan Dair
August 8, 2016 at 8:19 pm

It makes a nice change to see someone else rambling on, instead of it being me.!!!
I agree with much of the sentiment though.

As I said in an earlier post, the real problem is how little actual & verified FACTS are available in the public domain.

Governments & agencies may know a lot more, but if they do, they’re keeping quiet about it.

If they’re collectively keeping quiet about what they know, you’d generally call that a cover-up.?

Then again, the collective governments & agencies involved may actually know the same next-to-nothing that the rest of us know and they’re staying quiet out of embarrassment at that situation.???

MTF...P2

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Peetwo - 08-09-2016

IG asks MSM for less noise & more signal - Confused

Following from today's the Oz article here:

(08-09-2016, 08:36 AM)Peetwo Wrote:
Quote:Reference Wikipedia - A phugoid or fugoid /ˈfjuːɡɔɪd/ is an aircraft motion where the vehicle pitches up and climbs, and then pitches down and descends, accompanied by speeding up and slowing down as it goes "uphill" and "downhill." This is one of the basic flight dynamics modes of an aircraft (others include short period, dutch roll, and spiral divergence), and a classic example of a negative feedback system.

MH370 & Hoody's floating, diving leaf theory? -

Totally agree "V" too many variables, unknowns & educated guesses. Couple that with the latest unverified ROD calculations made from previously stated 'unreliable' ping data and dramatic throw away lines like...

"..MH370 could have been plunging at almost 400km/h just before it smashed into the sea with 239 passengers and crew.."

...makes you wonder what on earth Hoody & Foley are playing at? Why on earth would the ATSB be drawn into such an obvious pissing match?

A rehash:

(08-07-2016, 11:00 AM)Peetwo Wrote: MH370 & the "he said, she said", spin & deception wars -
Bizarrely the 'he said, she said' wars continue unabated in the Oz today:

Quote:
Quote:MH370 in catastrophic death dive, says analysis

Search director Peter Foley and Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood. Picture: Kym Smith

Brendan Nicholson

The Australian

12:00AM August 9, 2016

Defence Editor
Canberra

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/9e8d7209e1c2ac7ea9fc05a8a39849e0/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Exhaustive analysis by Defence scientists of automated signals received from Flight MH370 in its final moments has revealed that the Malaysia Airlines jet fell very fast — up to 20,000 feet a minute — as it crashed into the Indian Ocean off Western Australia.
The scientists have found that happened at 8.19am (WA time) on March 9, 2014, after the aircraft ran out of fuel and the two giant engines flamed out, the left engine first and then the right about 15 minutes later.

The Australian has been told in a series of briefings that simulations by Boeing, the aircraft’s manufacturer, indicate that once engine power was lost, MH370 would have slowed and lost lift. Its nose would have dropped and it would have descended in what the scientists call a fugoid motion in a series of downward swoops.

As it gathered speed, it would have gained lift and climbed again. As that speed fell off, its nose would have dropped rapidly once more, the aircraft falling into another steep dive.

That process is likely to have been repeated until it hit the water, probably with one wing down.

The impact would have been catastrophic. That fits with new analysis of sets of brief signals sent automatically between the aircraft and a satellite.

While the aircraft has not been found, the discovery of some pieces of its interior indicate it broke up on impact. Critics of the search strategy have suggested that the pilot could have landed MH370 intact on the ocean well outside the current search area. But Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood said analysis of the signals most closely matched a scenario in which there was no pilot at the controls at the end of the flight.

Mr Hood said the new data extracted from the signals reinforced the view of those leading the search for MH370 and its 239 passengers and crew that it was likely to have crashed in the 120,000sq km area now being searched.

He said extensive testing by Boeing indicated that after running out of fuel the aircraft would have dropped from 35,000 feet at a rate of between 12,000 feet a minute and 20,000 feet a minute. That rapid descent was confirmed by the signals data.

An aircraft making a normal landing would descend at 2000 feet a minute.

ATSB specialists in Canberra are examining a wing flap likely to have been torn from MH370 by the impact which drifted for over a year and eventually washed up on the coast of Tanzania.

The flap would have been part of the right wing next to the flaperon which washed up on Reunion Island.

GRAPHIC: Boeing’s crash theory

A 2014 FBI report revealed that MH370 pilot Zaharhie Ahmad Shah had previously plotted a course down into the southern Indian Ocean on a simulator in his home computer, but that report does not deal with what happened to MH370 in its final hours.

The Australians leading the search do not doubt that the pilot may well have been responsible for the jet’s disappearance but they say critics of the search strategy are wrong to assume that means they are looking in the wrong place.

There are two distinct questions, they say: who was responsible for the disappearance, and where is the aircraft now?

MH370 search program director Peter Foley told The Australian that with almost no tangible evidence, the likely crash area was not defined by investigations of what the pilot might have done but by months of unprecedented examination of signals transmitted by automatic systems on the jet as it made its lonely flight southward and calculations of when it would have run out of fuel.

Crucial to that research was a Defence Science and Technology Group team headed by Neil Gordon, Mr Foley said.

Just after midnight MH370 took off from Kuala Lumpur as normal and headed for Beijing. The last heard from the crew was a standard radio message bidding KL “goodnight”.

Malaysian military radar picked up the jet making two turns which took it back over the Malaysian Peninsula.

As more evidence emerged it became clear that MH370 made at least one more turn at the northwest tip of Sumatra towards the southern Indian Ocean.

Those three turns would have to have been made by a pilot.

As the plane flew south, equipment fitted to it automatically sent routine signals as a series of “handshakes” with a satellite linked to a ground station in Perth.

That maintenance system was separate from systems controlled by the crew and was designed to provide data, via satellite, about the state of parts such as the engines.

Seven such connections were completed, which is how technicians worked out that MH370 was still flying long after ground controllers lost contact with it.

Two satellite phone calls made to MH370 went unanswered but analysis of the signals enabled the Defence scientists to confirm that the jet was then still heading south.

After the six hourly maintenance “handshakes” came a seventh signal from the aircraft which was out of sequence. The investigators believe that was when MH370 started to run out of fuel and the first of its two engines flamed out. That automated signal warned that something was wrong.

Mr Foley said the ATSB had always kept an open mind. “Our hypothesis is based on what we know to be hard facts,’’ he said. “We have actively looked at all scenarios and anything that will help us find the aircraft.”
"HARD FACTS"? - BOLLOCKS!

Nope my questions still stand...

The above Oz article was followed by this other NewsCorp article from lunchtime today:

Quote:Missing plane MH370 dived from the air, new analysis shows

NEW analysis of automated signals from MH370 has revealed the missing plane took a massive dive at up to 20,000 feet a minute, as it plunged into the sea.

The Australian reports that Defence scientists found the crash occurred at 8.19am (WA local time) on March 9, 2014 in the Indian Ocean off Western Australia, after the plane ran out of fuel.

The plane’s left engine flamed out first and then the right went about 15 minutes later.
The Australian also reports that simulation tests by Boeing showed that after the plane’s engines lost power, MH370 would have slowed and lost lift.

The plane’s nose would have dropped and it would have plunged into downward swoops where it would have gathered speed and lifted, then fell down repeatedly before hitting the ocean.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood told The Australian that the pilot would not have been in control of the plane when it crashed.

Pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah who was flying MH370. Picture: SuppliedSource:Supplied

Mr Hood said the new data showed it is likely to have crashed in the 120,000sq km area now being searched.

The new data comes as Malaysian officials said that one of MH370’s pilots plotted a path over the Indian Ocean on a home flight simulator, but warned this did not prove he deliberately crashed the plane.

The search zone for MH370. Picture: SuppliedSource:Supplied

The Malaysia Airlines jet was carrying 239 passengers and crew when it disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014.

It is believed to have crashed into the Indian Ocean, but an extensive hunt off Australia’s west coast is drawing to a close without any sign of the plane.

Pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah had used a homemade flight simulator to plot a very similar course to MH370’s presumed final route, said Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai.
But he emphasised this was just one of thousands of practice routes discovered on Zaharie’s hard drive.

“There is no evidence to confirm that (the pilot) flew the plane into the southern Indian Ocean,” he said.

The discovery of the flight simulator data was first reported last month by New York Magazine, which said the FBI had recovered the deleted files.

But the end point of the simulated route was some 1,450 kilometres from the area where the plane is believed to have gone down, the report said.

MH370 families have posted photographs of personal items found on the beach of Madagascar in the area where other suspected aircraft debris was found by Blaine Gibson. Picture: FacebookSource:Facebook

Zaharie was the subject of intense media speculation when MH370 first vanished, with reports scrutinising everything from his political beliefs to his mental health for clues as to what could have happened.

Australia, Malaysia and China, where most of the passengers were from, have agreed that when the current search area is fully searched, expected around December, they will pull the plug unless “credible new information” emerges.

Meanwhile, Australian MH370 search authorities are hopeful a wing part found in Tanzania will shed light on how the flight crashed, amid a lack of public information on debris found a year ago.

The debris that washed up on Reunion Island. Picture: 60 MinutesSource:Supplied

The first debris linked to MH370 — a two-metre-long wing part known as a flaperon — washed up on the French Indian Ocean island of Reunion a year ago.

But it has remained in the hands of French investigators, leaving questions unanswered on how the airliner entered the ocean.

“We have also seen some analysis from the French that suggests that it’s a possibility that (the flaperon) was in a deployed state,” Peter Foley, the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB)’s head of MH370 search operations, told Channel Nine’s 60 Minutes.

That above quoted statement from Folley, coupled with his other stated ROD bollocks, would suggest to me that he doesn't know if he is punch drunk; or Martha rather than Arthur - truly bizarre... Huh

Which brings me to the latest from Duncan Steele (IG) on the latest charade of spin, bulldust, lies & deception coming out of the ATSB and being fuelled by a lazy, tabloid inflicted 24/7 MSM.. Angry

Quote:Lying in Plain Sight
2016/08/09 Duncan

Lying in Plain Sight

Duncan Steel
9th August 2016

This has been a peculiar week or so for MH370-watchers in Australia and New Zealand. Amongst other items about MH370 appearing in the mass media was a segment of Channel 9’s 60 Minutes current affairs programme which could best be described as utter buffoonery.

The story – and it was a story, in that it was mostly fictional – told on that programme has been carried by many media outlets around the world. There are too many webpages for me to list on which lazy journalists simply copied text from that program segment.

There were also too many mistakes made in the program for me to describe and contradict them. Just a few, then: (a) No parts of the aircraft interior have been found, we were told, implying that the fuselage remained intact. Wrong. At least three parts of the interior have already been found, and more will surely be, mostly on the coasts of the western Indian Ocean. (b) There should have been at least two million fragments produced, if it were a high-speed impact, and only a few have been found. Nonsense. If there were two million equal-mass fragments, then each would be under 100 grams (based on the 175 tonne aircraft mass after fuel exhaustion). You can’t recognise parts that small as being definitely from a B777. What has been recognised has been about 20 pieces that floated (a sharp selection effect there) with masses of a few kilograms upwards. The drift analysis is consistent with there having been about 10,000 such items starting their slow voyages across the Indian Ocean from wherever MH370 crashed.
10,000 at a few kilograms each indicates 20, 30, 40 tonnes. Of course the larger flaperon and flap parts that have been found would pull the overall mass of floating debris upwards. © The damage to the trailing edges of the flaperon and part-flap could only be caused by a controlled ditching. Again, nonsense. As the IG pointed out very soon after the flaperon was found, the trailing edge damage and the damage to its connection or hinges to the wing appear to be consistent with high-speed fluttering: once the fuel is exhausted, the hydraulic power that would damp the flaperon’s motion is lost, and it would be expected to flutter at a high rate (perhaps 10-20 hertz) until failure. Look up the Boeing manuals, folks. It may well be that these two large items remained intact because they detached from the aircraft some time before hitting the ocean, and so actually dropped at a lower speed due to their size and shape compared to the overall aircraft.

Now an article has appeared today in The Australian newspaper that is almost the definition of ‘old news’. The article begins:

“Exhaustive analysis by Defence scientists of automated signals received from Flight MH370 in its final moments has revealed that the Malaysia Airlines jet fell very fast — up to 20,000 feet a minute — as it crashed into the Indian Ocean off Western Australia.
The scientists have found that happened at 8.19am (WA time) on March 9, 2014, after the aircraft ran out of fuel…”

If you had been following the various posts/papers that have appeared on this website (this is the 97th, I think) you would know that the Independent Group (IG) has been saying this for a long, long time.

Here I wrote the following:

A rapid dive/descent is evidenced by various pieces of information, including: (a) The two final BFO values, spaced by eight seconds, which are indicative of a downward acceleration of about 0.7g, if they are interpreted as being valid indicators of the aircraft speed; (b) The fact that the final SATCOM logon was not completed, which should have occurred within about 90 seconds of the process that prompted the above two BFO values; © Simulator runs that show a spiral dive commencing once all power is lost; (d) Fragments of the aircraft now being found, which might be interpreted as implying a very violent crash in which the aircraft disintegrated. These matters have largely been discussed in previous posts here. This dive scenario is consistent with there being no conscious/able person left at the controls of the aircraft in this very final phase of the flight.

That was only five months ago, on 7th March 2016. However, I was merely repeating what the IG had been saying for a long time. For example, on 26th September 2014 an IG statement was published on this website, saying the following (amongst other matters):

Although questions may remain as to the interpretation of the BFO values at 00:19:29 and 00:19:37 (182 Hz and then –2 Hz, compared to the steady, linear increase to 252 Hz at 00:11:00), there is no reason to reject the recorded values outright. The BFO values cannot be explained by an onboard AES-compensated horizontal speed in any direction. The fact that there were no more records logged after 00:19:37 we interpret as being due to the aircraft having crashed very soon thereafter, consistent with the final two BFO values representing a rapid downward trajectory.
The rate-of-descent we calculate from the final BFO value is approximately 15,700 feet per minute. This is an almost vertical dive at 287 km per hour (155 knots). The descent rate was very likely increasing rapidly (i.e. accelerating under gravity, only limited by the aircraft drag).

If the article in The Australian is correct in what it says as quoted above, so that the official investigators have only just come to the stated conclusion, then there are various Australian Government employees who should be ashamed of themselves; there would be many Australian taxpayers who will be furious; and there should be some Australian politicians tearing into the Government in Canberra. This is a national disgrace.

The article in The Australian continues:

“The Australian has been told in a series of briefings that simulations by Boeing, the aircraft’s manufacturer, indicate that once engine power was lost, MH370 would have slowed and lost lift. Its nose would have dropped and it would have descended in what the scientists call a fugoid motion in a series of downward swoops.”

It happens that IG member Mike Exner took it upon himself to make use of his aviation industry contacts and conduct just such a set of simulated flights in an industry-standard B777 simulator. This was in early November 2014. When I watched the movie of the simulated plunge from the skies, the experience made me feel green with motion sickness. (Memo to The Australian journalists and sub-editors: it’s normally spelled phugoid because it’s derived from ancient Greek.)

I just did a search on my own website, and find that the first suggestion of phugoid motion appeared in a comment made on April 9th, 2014. That’s four weeks after MH370 was lost. On April 10th, Brian Anderson of the IG (which at that stage did not yet exist) wrote on my website:

“I have a good description of a real B777 full motion Sim test, done to see what happens at fuel exhaustion. To paraphrase briefly, – – one engine fails, the aircraft maintains stable flight on track and altitude, but at reduced speed. At the point the second engine fails the autopilot drops out and a series of phugoids develops with an increasing descent rate on each cycle. Shortly into this the RAT [ram air turbine] is deployed automatically, and some electrical systems come alive. The APU tried an auto restart but failed [ – – no fuel]. The phugoids continue until the end.”

In various reports, such as here (and dated 26th September 2014) the IG described the expected phugoid motion and overall rapid descent after the aircraft apparently ran out of fuel at altitude.

Now, more than 22 months after the IG published that report, and 29 months after MH370 was lost, The Australian newspaper is apparently saying that this phugoid motion is a new discovery on the part of Boeing, using their flight simulators. What is going on?
About all I can do is to appeal to the media in Australia to take seriously the idea of the Fourth Estate. The people at 60 Minutes may have thought that they were doing their bit, but they stuffed up, adding to the noise rather than improving the signal, by broadcasting things that are demonstrably false, and indeed even silly. The Australian has now published as ‘news’ things that should have been known to the official investigators more than two years ago.

Why does this matter, in terms of the underwater search that has cost so much of Australian taxpayers’ money? The answer is because the search has been conducted in the wrong place.

Early on the end points calculated by IG members were indeed further south than we have been advocating for a long time, because we had made various assumptions that we later recognised to be dubious or false (e.g. an early Final Major Turn southwards; ‘straight line’ paths rather than the possibility of a gradual trend eastwards because of the autopilot by default following a path defined by magnetic north rather than true north), but as we understood more that southerly end point suggestion was revised and in several posts we have pointed to likely crash locations further north. (“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?” – John Maynard Keynes.)

Whilst we have not been afraid to look at alternatives (for example here, and here), we have been saying for a long, long time that the final BFOs, and other information, point towards a spiral dive from altitude and therefore that MH370 must have crashed close to the 7th arc. For most of the past year the expensive underwater search has generally been covering areas spaced ever-further from the 7th arc, but at latitudes south of 35S. This is wrong: those areas would require a long glide, which is contraindicated by the information we have. A rapid descent would imply a crash close to the 7th arc. Again, the IG has been saying this for a long time:

The occurrence of a near-vertical spiral dive
[*] has significant implications in reducing the width of the target search area, as mentioned previously. We argue that the aircraft could not have flown far beyond the 7th arc before crashing into the ocean, if it went beyond that arc at all: the BFO data at that time (00:19:29 and 00:19:37) indicate that MH370 was in a tight spiral dive (radius below 1 NM) over the 7th arc and therefore the crash may actually have been just inside that arc.

(IG progress report of 26th September 2014 again.)

[*]
[*Note dated 2016/08/09: This specific phrase “a near-vertical spiral dive” was perhaps too strong and/or misleading; in retrospect we would likely write “a rapid descent, perhaps with phugoids, evolving into a spiral dive“. At that stage we did not yet have Mike Exner’s experiences in a B777 simulator to work from, those simulator runs occurring about a month after the above statement was written.]
[*]
Regarding that “tight spiral dive”: take a look at the report published today in The Australian, and what is on the large piece of paper on the table in the photograph at the head of the article. Do those curly lines look like a couple of tight spiral dives to you? Such spiral dives ending with crashes near the 7th arc were not only discussed, but also graphically illustrated, in posts by IG members Brian Anderson and Richard Godfrey in April and May 2015 (see here and here).

The best place to search is near that 7th arc, but further north. If you look at various posts published on this website, you will see that several lines of evidence have been pulled together that are consistent with a crash near the 7th arc, but between latitudes of 28S and 35S. That’s where the underwater search should have been looking.

[*]
Although I don't agree on many of the IG assumptions, mainly due to the total lack of bona fide factual and/or hard evidence. However I do agree with Duncan's opinion on the bizarre narrative being pedalled by the ATSB, aided and abetted by the MSM, ever since the factually wanting segment presented on 60 minutes... Huh

MTF...P2

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Peetwo - 08-11-2016

Latest from MH370 DOI (debris of inconvenience).

Two days ago from the ABC PM program:

Quote:MH370: New evidence links personal belongings found on Madagascar beach to wreckage

Updated Tue at 7:23pmTue 9 Aug 2016, 7:23pm

A group representing the families of passengers and crew onboard missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 have revealed new evidence linking more than 160 personal belongings found on a remote beach off Africa to the people on the doomed jet. The inventory includes more than 60 women's handbags including one branded to a travel agency in a Chinese province. The haul comes from the same eight-kilometre stretch of Madagascar where pieces of confirmed MH370 wreckage have been found.

Peter Lloyd
Source: PM | Duration: 4min 18sec

A group representing the families of passengers and crew on board missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 has revealed new evidence linking more than 160 personal belongings found on a remote beach off Africa to the people on the doomed jet.

The inventory includes more than 60 women's handbags.

They include one branded to a travel agency in a Chinese province where up to 18 passengers came from.

A shoe sole sold by Australian retailer Rivers was traced back to a Chinese footwear manufacturer.

The haul comes from the same 8 kilometre stretch of Madagascar coastline where pieces of confirmed MH370 wreckage have been found.

But Malaysia has ignored relatives' pleas to gather the evidence.

Peter Lloyd reports.

Here was a couple of comments courtesy Mike Chillit's 7th Arc blog.. Wink

Quote:Carol S. on August 9, 2016 at 1:28 pm said:

As with any international organization, compliance seems to be at the whim of the participant, with little or no consequence if that nation does not comply, especially with a group like ICAO.

In reference to the personal effects mentioned in http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4515460.htm, as a woman myself for the last nearly 70 years, I HAVE NEVER THROWN MY PURSE OVERBOARD ANYWHERE, and the chances of 60 handbags in one spot on a beach must be astronomical. If MY is not interested in gathering these items, investigating and possibly returning to NOK if the item can be ID’d, why can’t ICAO step in? I bet there are lots of people who would volunteer to do the work.

Can one of you tweepers (is that the correct term) put that out there? Does anyone know if Blaine G. is anywhere near Madagascar?

Just a thought. We all have lots of thoughts, but this seems to be something that can have tangible results.

Lesley Dewar on August 10, 2016 at 1:28 am said:

Yes, Carol.
As a handbag carrying woman of 72 years myself, and an avid student of statistics, I unequivocally agree with you.

It’s clear MY does not want MH370 found and has no regard for NOK.

It’s sickening and had it not been for the commitment of Blaine G, and others, we would have been left wondering.

We still do not know what happened – but we do know there is a conspiracy at the highest levels of political interference trying to prevent the world from knowing.

While on Chillit his recent excellent graphics analysis of the NOAA drifters in relation to the 7th arc Wink

MTF...P2

RE: Less Noise and More Signal - Gobbledock - 08-11-2016

From Carol.S, tendentious blogger;

"If MY is not interested in gathering these items, investigating and possibly returning to NOK if the item can be ID’d, why can’t ICAO step in? I bet there are lots of people who would volunteer to do the work".

Astute pickup by an every day citizen, yes even the average person off the street can see that ICAO is a toothless, useless, testicle deficient, complete waste of space. No wonder that one of its bastard children, the ATsB, is reflecting the DNA of its parent.

What a complete and utter global disgrace the MH370 circus has turned into.

Tick 'shame shame shame' tock